What do you guys think about the new canopy proficiency card to obtain a B license? Is this for the skydivers safety? Or a way to charge more and more money? If i complete the 8 or 10 jumps required on the card flying a 240 at (0.3 WL) is it really useful when after a week I decide to go for a high performance canopy at a WL of 2.5? Considering that I can fly a crossfire 99 (2.5 WL) with just 25 jumps and swoop the shit out of it....why is the proficiency card required? Why so many rules? Why so much money for a stupid piece of paper that does nothing? Why are Licenses so expensive? Is USPA on the skydivers side or their on wallet side?

If you search you will see that I have said this numerous times about the card. It is a starting point for canopy continueing education. I would support c and maybe D license canopy cards as well. and as you mentioned maybe a wingload proficiency card.

The problem is it is a very slow moving process and there has to be an enormous amount of give and take.

I would encourage any feedback you have on any topic but specifically canopy. Just PM me or even call me on my cell it isnt hard to find. I will let you know where we are and how we got there. But trust me many on the board and specifically S&T committee have nothing but good intentions when trying to tackle a problem that has put us way behind the curve, and now it is catch up time.

I think it should start by adding canopy proficiency to all instructor ratings, especially AFFI courses. That would include ground and air evaluations. We must teach those who are going to teach canopy what to teach and how. Again, this is no simple one day fix, if it were I would be in line with you.

This is very near and dear to my heart and I will listen to any constructive feedback you or anyone else has trust me, but to paint the USPA and BOD with one brush is a bit unfair. Just come to a meeting and see how much goes into it. I urge you to get involved, and that could be as easy as calling me and flaming me on the phone. I promise I will let your point of view be heard.

Sorry for the rant, I am not being aggresive, I just know how much time and energy has gone into what we have so far. It is not what I wanted believe me but it is a comprimised starting point.

As much as I would love to answer every question you posed, it would take me too long for each one. I would be happy to discuss it with you if you are serious and not just stirring the pot.

There is an entire thread on the card that will answer the majority of your thoughts. But I will tell you money has absolutely ZERO to do with it. It has more to do with a statistical trend that is very alarming and has become USPA's specifically the Safety and Training Committee's responsibility and obligation to address.

How many people working on their 'B' license in the last 3 years are on the fatality list? It seems there are significantly more highly experienced skydivers on small canopies getting on the list, most of whom have taken or taught canopy control courses.

I applaud USPA's effort to promote safety by educating skydivers. It may be by focusing on canopy control courses significant injuries might go down, but it will be the teachers and not the students who benefit as they seem to be the ones getting injured and/or dying.

I would encourage any feedback you have on any topic but specifically canopy. Just PM me or even call me on my cell it isnt hard to find.

Just search "Wingload BSR". Very easy to do and you will see I have been talking about the problem and what to do since 2003 that's almost 10 years now.

Quote:

The problem is it is a very slow moving process

Which is why the USPA should have started 10 years ago and actually done something not something half assed.

Day late and a dollar short sound familiar?

Quote:

but to paint the USPA and BOD with one brush is a bit unfair.

No it is not when they have been ignoring the problem and suggestions from its members for 10 years

Quote:

I urge you to get involved

I have been involved... Mostly been ignored. I am tired of the USPA being owned by the DZO's, PIA and the manufacturers. My first suggestion was sent to the USPA almost 10 years ago.

And you may remember that I had thrown my hat into the ring for the SERD position. I figured that *might* be the only way to get the USPA BOD out of the bed of the PIA and manufacturers..... But you will notice the guy selected happens to WORK for PD... So much for that huh? Nothing against AL... But the USPA just made a selection that shows how much PD owns the USPA BOD.

Quote:

Sorry for the rant, I am not being aggresive, I just know how much time and energy has gone into what we have so far.

Call me in 10 years and tell me about 'effort'... My phone number should not be hard to find, it was in your email inbox.

The problem is it is a very slow moving process and there has to be an enormous amount of give and take.

Oh yeah, between who? If the BOD would open their eyes, there would be no 'give and take', there would be a WL BSR, and a requirement to take an additional canopy control course for each license.

This isn't a case of people trying to get an issue to pass a popular vote of the general public, this is essentailly a dictatorship, where the BOD does have the power to 'just do it', with or without anyone's approval.

I'll point to that BS $10k 'loan' for the USPA demo team as proof of what I'm saying.

Despite all this, there had been virtually zero action on this issue for over a decade. I can recall a poster that was printed, and a suggestion from the USPA for everyone to 'take a canopy control course', even though the USPA did not provide a courses or even a syllabus for someone else to teach a course.

There was an interesting comment in the wingsuit forum from a poster who said a USPA RD was at his DZ asking around about a wingsuit coach rating. He wondered why they would be there as the wingsuit culture at that DZ was, in his own words, pitiful. My immedaite thought was why the BOD wasn't looking to the established expert wingsuiters we have in the community, the ones who work with first flight students every day, and have the most experience with wingsuits and wingsuit training.

Of course the answer was that the BOD can't seem to pull it's head out of it's own ass and do something smart. Take the canopy control course issue. I'm willing to bet money that if anyone had called Scott Miller, Jimmy Tranter, Luigi Cani, Jim Slaton or Brian Germain 10 years ago, any one of them would have gladly helped to develop a 'standard' canopy control course that could have been folded into the licensing program. Instead, they kept themsevles locked in closed sessions, sure they were all experts in everything they needed to know, and came up with a poster. Brilliant.

I'll quote one of my personal heros, Don Schwab, S&TA at my first DZ. About 2 or 3 years into the sport, I had a question about break-offs from freefly jumps (which was still very new at the time), and this is what my 'expert' S&TA said to me, "I have no idea, you're the freeflyer, not me. Truth is, if anyone esle asked me that question, I probably would have told them to go ask you".

That summed it up for me. If you want the best results, get the best person for the job. Sometimes it's you, other times it's someone else, but one way you can always succeed is to make sure the best candidate is the one who gets the job.

The problem is it is a very slow moving process and there has to be an enormous amount of give and take.

Oh yeah, between who? If the BOD would open their eyes, there would be no 'give and take', there would be a WL BSR, and a requirement to take an additional canopy control course for each license.

This isn't a case of people trying to get an issue to pass a popular vote of the general public, this is essentailly a dictatorship, where the BOD does have the power to 'just do it', with or without anyone's approval.

I'll point to that BS $10k 'loan' for the USPA demo team as proof of what I'm saying.

Despite all this, there had been virtually zero action on this issue for over a decade. I can recall a poster that was printed, and a suggestion from the USPA for everyone to 'take a canopy control course', even though the USPA did not provide a courses or even a syllabus for someone else to teach a course. . . . . Of course the answer was that the BOD can't seem to pull it's head out of it's own ass and do something smart. Take the canopy control course issue. I'm willing to bet money that if anyone had called Scott Miller, Jimmy Tranter, Luigi Cani, Jim Slaton or Brian Germain 10 years ago, any one of them would have gladly helped to develop a 'standard' canopy control course that could have been folded into the licensing program. Instead, they kept themsevles locked in closed sessions, sure they were all experts in everything they needed to know, and came up with a poster. Brilliant.

Give it up USPA. Call in the experts, and defer to their expertise.

Now how could anyone argue against any of that? Thanks for printing my thoughts for me. USDZOA? USPIAA?

What do you guys think about the new canopy proficiency card to obtain a B license?

I think it's a great idea. Been teaching canopy control courses covering the same stuff at our dz for over three years and there has been a definite improvement in pattern and landing area chaos. Not to mention those jumpers who had landing issues prior but now land fine.

In reply to:

Or a way to charge more and more money?

Can't blame USPA for that. The requirements can be completed without taking a canopy control course - at some smaller dzs that could be for the cost of the jumps and some beer for the instructor. The cost of a canopy course is set by the dz or the instructors doing it - not USPA.

In reply to:

If i complete the 8 or 10 jumps required on the card

The card is structured for five jumps. It can all be done in 4 hop and pops.

In reply to:

Considering that I can fly a crossfire 99 (2.5 WL) with just 25 jumps and swoop the shit out of it....why is the proficiency card required?

Good question. I'd love to hear some valid reasons why there isn't a BSR that says you can't fly that wingloading until you have a D license.

But really, at 25 jumps you should know that a Crossfire at 2.5 flies like shit....

Dave, I would like to give you some insight on something that is starting to shape up in the wingsuit community, and let me know if the steps being taking are what you are referring to.

I was made the Chair of a Sub-Committee to look into the Wing Suit Instructor Rating. The proposal was put on the agenda and brought forward by DSE. Prior to the meeting I made it a point to go to Elsinore and see his school, look at the material, and speak to him one on one. I wanted to be as educated as possible mainly because I am not an expert in the WS arena.

The Safety and Training Committee went round and round ultimately not wanting to make a knee jerk vote we formed a committee to look into it further. NOTE: I think it may have gone through based on my personal opinions.

Since the meeting the following BOD members are on the committee (Randy Allison, Tony Thacker, Meriah Eakins, Sherry Buthcer, and myself) as of now DSE and Taya Weiss (who were at the meeting) are advisors.

I felt it important to reach out to the whole comunity and as you say get the experts to chime in. Currently, I have a list of 20 Plus recommended advisors who are supposedly the most knowledgable and experienced in the WS community. We are in the process of notifying the advisors and explaining we will be asking for their advice. Unfortunately, that is as far as we have gotten. We are still defining our goals, I am NOT looking for any input on this topic here as I will ask at the right time in the WS threads. All I am pointing out is that we are trying to do what you are referring to.

The problem is so many members are upset with past actions that they are painting every BOD member as being an entrenched, out for themself, asshole. So if anyone new gets on there with good intentions they are hung out to defend themselves from a discouraged, disappointed, and feedup membership.

If you were elected tomorrow, you couldnt solve all the problems that exist. You would be one voice, and trust me it is very bothersome at times. All I can say is I hear the frustration from membership and I get it.

There is ZERO reason not to have a HP canopy sign off just like they do in aviation....

It won't help. Don't waste your time...

Last year I lost two friends to swooping. Real good friends.

One had thousands of jumps and was a well respected canopy pilot and swooper that no one thought was pushing the limits. He was a go-to guy on canopy control and coached others and was the first to jump on someone else for doing something stupid (landing the wrong direction, etc)...

The other died on a jump while being coached (video of landings) by a world champion.

Both were USPA pro rated pilots on small canopies.

The USPA, nor any of the world experts, could make a signoff form that would have helped with the highly personalized coaching these jumpers had received. I know in my heart many factors that contributed to the incidents, but these things are very personal and cannot be regulated.

There certainly is a group of skydivers out there that are swooping "way too young", who everyone talks about around the DZ, or flames here online. Some of them get hurt. Maybe of the S&TA or DZO would ground these people (with the possible help of a signoff form to justify their actions) - we might be able to save these people from themselves... But the DZO and S&TA should be the ones doing this already and I question if a new form will inspire them to do it when they are not doing it now. My home DZ would ground someone in a heartbeat (I have seen the pilot, turn around, and tell a jumper the DZO just called up and said to not let the person out of the plane when the DZO found out the canopy they were jumping), but a DZ I know of nearby follows no rules and could care less about USPA paperwork, and lets people do what they want. The DZO, not the USPA, sets the attitude.

There are many, many swoopers dieing or getting hurt, who would be the ones qualified to write the standards that USPA would use for any signoff.

Unfortunately, the USPA, in my opinion, will not be able to help much with swooping injuries, as the coaching is way too advanced for some check off paperwork. However, there have been some pretty serious canopy collisions in the last few years, and that is something that could be addressed with licence-specific coaching... And maybe some of the toggle-whip low turns...

Dave, I would like to give you some insight on something that is starting to shape up in the wingsuit community

Long before wingsuits became a problem (or even a viable reality), canopies were the leading killer of skydivers. What's shaping up in that community? Who's the chair of what comittee to solve that problem? What experts have you called in to establish a canopy coach rating, or even just a canopy control course that any instructor could teach?

Quote:

If you were elected tomorrow, you couldnt solve all the problems that exist.

I never claimed to be able to, or even concerned out the majority of problems. I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I point out the lack of progress or attention to the deadliest, longest standing problem in the sport.

It's a HUGE, dare I say MASSIVE oversight on the part of the BOD for many, many years, and through several administrations. There's no excuse for it, and the fact that so much time and attention has been focused on freefall based activites (both in student training and beyond) only adds insult to injury.

There is no dought that we are behind the curve with canopy education. That is what we are trying to catch up with. I have personally spoken to dozens and dozens of canopy experts, all of the top guys. That is the model I used in presenting the canopy card as a starting point on the canopy front. My next order of business is to implememt canopy education to our new instructors. I want to implement canopy evaluations for knowledge and ability within the instructor curriculium. I am working on it. With regard to canopy it is on the top of my list.

With regard to wingsuits, I see this as ten years ago with canopy and I see an oportunity to get ahead of the curve. That is why I am getting involved with the wing suit instructor proposals. I see this as the opportunity to look back in ten years and say we did it correct.

I think we are on the same page, I just wish it was easier to work with the community in a positive fashion. It seems that most are so discouraged based on inaction or improper action of the BOD in the past, that they have lost all faith.

It seems that most are so discouraged based on inaction or improper action of the BOD in the past, that they have lost all faith

Inaction of the BOD in the past? How about inaction of all the BODs in the past. It's not like this is limited to the current administration, it's been going on for years, and let's remember that the bulk of the BOD are long-standing members, so the fact that this has spanned multiple admistrations is a mark against them on two fronts, 1) that new members of the BOD failed to take action, and 2) that old members have taken no action year after year.

Take a look at this thread I started in 2004, when this had been going on long enough for this to be an issue. When is this going to get some attention and resolution?

>Inaction of the BOD in the past? How about inaction of all the BODs in the past.

About six years back a bunch of us went to the BOD and demanded a BSR that separated landing patterns. We went with incident data, a presentation and a lot of representation. At that meeting we agreed to a compromise where the separated landing areas was made part of the group member pledge.

The BOD does indeed take action at times. Not all the time, but they are trying to do the right thing. You can help by bringing what you want to them - gathering names on petitions, proposing training programs, putting together a presentation, gathering data from incident and fatality reports, even putting together your proposed program and trying it at your DZ. It's a lot of work, but that's what has to happen. "Just talk to the experts and make them do it" won't get much in the way of results.

You can help by bringing what you want to them - gathering names on petitions, proposing training programs, putting together a presentation, gathering data from incident and fatality reports, even putting together your proposed program and trying it at your DZ. It's a lot of work, but that's what has to happen. "Just talk to the experts and make them do it" won't get much in the way of results.

Granted, but nobody had to lobby the BOD to get them to spend their time going over (again) the manusha of the competition manual, and I doubt it took all that much personal effort to lighten the USPA wallet to the tune of $10k for the 'demo team', but I'm supposed to be OK with the idea that I should bust my ass just to get the BOD to take action on what is clearly one of the biggest problems in the sport?

Let's face it, short of the FAA taking over sport skydiving, open canopy incidents are the #1 problem facing skydiving today. Truth is, if there were less open canopy incidents, we would be that much further off the FAAs radar anyway, so really focusing on open canopy incidents takes care of two birds with one stone (I thought 'kill' was a poor word choice given the context).

It should be issue #1, without any extra effort on the part of the membership. Of the few things we do have hard numbers on, open canopy incidents are far and above the biggest slice of the pie-chart, and have been for as long as I can remember.

You can bust your ass or not; up to you. If you bust your ass it is more likely to happen. Is that worth it to you? If so, then do the work. If not, that's fine too.

Indded. Your point is as valid as mine. You're suggesting the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and I'm suggesting the being the largest slice of the pie chart should be enough of a 'squeak'.

FYI, I did my share of squeaking a few years back. I reached out the chair of the safety and training comittee, and expressed my concerns and offered to assist in any possible getting some sort of solution in place. I recieved what amounted to a 'form letter' in response, which concluded in a promise to get back with me in the near future. When that didn't happen, I initiated another contact, and was not replied in any way.

I squeaked. The issue itself has been squeaking year in and year out for over a decade. Other countries have taken action and put programs (now long-standing) in place with great success. The BOD has yet to act in any signifacnt manner.

It's not like they're made of gold besides this one issue, there's a host of areas where they have let down the membership, but this one, in my opinion, is the worst example.

About six years back a bunch of us went to the BOD and demanded a BSR that separated landing patterns

And weren't you also a part of the W/L BSR???? Not much action on that.

We the jumpers need to realize that the BOD does not really care about the jumpers anymore. The USPA is an organization that, not by mandate but by history and by makeup, is for the DZO's and the manufacturer's.

The reason is simple, only the DZO's and manufacturer reps can afford the time off to be on the board for the most part.